Thank you for this article! It was cathartic and healing for me. I am thankful that I am not alone and that someone out there understands my situation and has so eloquently been able to put it into words. I have been an RN for 43 years. I worked here in the US through the covid times. Not fearful, yet fully aware that I could get covid and it could possibly be serious/deadly. As an RN, I am no stranger to suffering and death. After careful consideration of risks/benefits, I made the choice not to vaccinate.
When I heard the news from my employer that I would lose my job if I did not get vaccinated, I had an IMMEDIATE flashback to a physical and psychological abuse situation that I experienced as a young woman of 23. Few are able to understand my reaction. “It’s only a vaccine!” But then and there, I knew that the die was cast, and, if I am to be true to my self, and to that young woman I was, I cannot accept the mandated vaccine. Up until then, the door was always open that I may change my mind. No more.
As you said, it has become for me “a fight to save the human rights and soul of my community and country.” (and my world)

Hi Deborah,

Thank you for sharing these thoughts – I believe that they’re certainly worthy of serious consideration, chilling as they may be.

I actually wrote an article that I think speaks very much to what you wrote here. I wrote it prior to the covid crisis, so I don’t explicitly mention this crisis, but I reflected upon the situation of extraordinary social inequality and the destruction of democracy and our Earth more generally. You may find it interesting: https://cncl.info/human-society/reclaim-our-power-or-face-extinction-the-choice-is-ours/

We also developed this organisation – CNCL – with the explicit intention to support “the common people” in taking power back from the ruling elites, who have clearly abused their power in some truly horrific ways. And regardless of what one’s personal beliefs are regarding the covid situation, I think we can all agree that certain powerful interests are, at the very least, taking full advantage of the situation in ways that further enrich and emnpower themselves, while further increasing social inequality. You might enjoy reading more about our principles and mission statement here: https://cncl.info/about-us/

As if any non-Maori people’s personal history with trauma and damaging power-control dynamics haven’t really happened?

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/126955947/were-marching-were-yelling-but-where-the-hell-is-new-zealand-headed

John Oneill: and your point was?? Brian

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/digital-vaccine-passports-surveillance-capitalism-covid-gates/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYIJxoh7gqw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqPJiM5Ir3A

https://rumble.com/vo8ehd-astrid-stuckelberger-who-corruption-planet-lockdown.html

https://rumble.com/vd15i1-planet-lockdown-catherine-austin-fitts-full-interview.html

Thanks for these details, John.

I had a look at the research study you sent, and without having the time to go thoroughly through the data analysis, I already see what appears to be 2 serious methodological issues:
1) they consider those who’ve received the first injection within the past 14 days to be “unvaccinated,” rather than “partially vaccinated,” which would have been more accurate. There is evidence that people are somewhat immune-compromised in the first few weeks of vaccination, and at a particularly high risk of testing positive for covid. So by calling this group “unvaccinated,” I suspect that it significantly skews the results in a manner that would make the “unvaccinated” results appear worse than they actually are, and the “vaccinated” results appear more favorable.
2) it appears that the latter half of the interval period had a higher percentage of people vaccinated at the same time that the broader community was experiencing significantly reduced infection rates. This would also apparently skew the results, making the vaccine appear more beneficial than it actually is.
3) last but not least, this research study has NOT passed peer-review (read the disclaimer just below the title); and I suspect these (and other problems?) may make it difficult, if not impossible without substantial revisions, for it to do so.

Following are 2 studies that were published at a similar time as the one you mentioned, but HAVE passed peer review (I grant that there is much corruption in the field, and even peer-reviewed articles are often suspect, but you generally find bias in the direction of the $ and/or the prevailing narrative, and conclusions like these are likely not beneficial to the pharmaceutical industry and other associates and don’t line up with the popular narrative. In other words, I don’t think the data would have been “massaged” in a way that intentionally hurts the pro-vaccine message, making these conclusions even more compelling in my mind).

They both conclude no significant difference in transmission rates between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated:

Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-021-00808-7#change-history

Community transmission and viral load kinetics of the SARS-CoV-2 delta (B.1.617.2) variant in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals in the UK: a prospective, longitudinal, cohort study: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00648-4/fulltext
*interestingly, the results here showed that being vaccinated reduced your chance of becoming infected by covid slightly (though nowhere near as much as the mainstream narrative would have you believe), and reduced the length of infection slightly, but did not reduce peak viral loads nor reduce the risk of transmission to others, and in fact showed that the vaccinated exhibited slightly higher rates of transmission to others than the unvaccinated.

With all this in mind, I still come back to the original premise of my article: Taking away people’s rights to choose what goes into their own bodies (i.e., informed consent for medical interventions) is certain to cause serious social ruptures and personal psychological harm (leaving aside the very real risk of harm by the vaccines in this case). Personally, I’m going to have to see very compelling research that these vaccines are “very safe” and “very effective,” with this backed up by transparent and trustworthy sources (with my experience in this field, I know all too well just how corrupt the pharmaceutical industry is) before I would consider the prospect that such extensive coercion to be worth the benefit; and I am just not seeing it. Of course, I readily support anyone to make their own individual choice in this regard. Coercion, on the other hand, is a completely different matter.

The references to transmission of virus from vaccinated people were from a New Scientist article from the Oct 30 issue. Just for you, I’ll type the whole article.
‘Covid-19 vaccines reduce the likelihood of infecting others
Michael Le Page
People who are fully vaccinated against covid-19 are far less likely to infect others, despite the arrival of the delta variant, several studies show. The findings refute the idea that vaccines no longer do much to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.
“Vaccinated people do transmit the virus in some cases, but the data are super crystal-clear that the risk of transmission for a vaccinated individual is much, much lower than for an unvaccinated individual,” says Christopher Byron Brooke at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
A recent study found that vaccinated people infected with the delta variant are 63 per cent less likely to infect people who are unvaccinated (medRxiv,doi.org/g3p3). This is only slightly lower than with the alpha variant, says Brechje de Gier at the National Institute for Public Healthe and the Environment in the Netherlands, who led the study. Her team had previously found that vaccinated people infected with alpha were 73 per cent less likely to infect unvaccinated people.
What is important to realise, de Gier says, is that the full effect of vaccines on reducing transmission is even higher than 63 per cent, because most vaccinated people don’t become infected in the first place.
Others have looked into this full effect. Earlier this year, Ottavia Prunas at Yale University applied two different models to data from Israel, where the Pfizer/BioNtech vaccine was used. Her team’s conclusion was that the overall vaccine effectiveness against transmission was 89 per cent.
However, the data used only went up to 24 March, before delta became dominant. the team is now using more recent data t work out the impact of delta, says Prunas.
The idea that vaccines are no longer effective against transmission has circulated in some groups and may derive from news reports in Julyclaiming that vaccinated people who become infected “can carry as much virus as others”. But even if this were true, vaccines would still greatly cut transmission by reducing infections in the first place.
In fact, the study that sparked the news reports didn’t measure the number of viruses in someone directly but relied on so-called Ct scores, a measure of viral RNA. However, this RNA can derive from viruses that have been destroyed by the immune system. “You can measure the RNA, but it’s rendered useless,” says Timothy Peto at the University of Oxford.
Yet another line of evidence comes from a study by Brooke. His team took samples from 23 people every day after they first tested positive until the infection cleared and performed tests, including trying to infect cells in a dish with the samples.
With five out of the six fully vaccinated people in the study, none of the samples were infectious, unlike most from the vaccinated people. The study shows that vaccinated people shed fewer viruses and also stop shedding sooner than those who are unvaccinated, says Brooke.
The one bit of bad news is that Peto’s study shows that the protection a vaccine provides against an infected person infecting others does wane over time, by around a quarter over the three months after a second vaccine dose. ” This has made me a believer in boosters,” says Peto.’
End of article.

Hi Paris,

Perhaps you are giving the man the forum he needs to spout on. Despite a likely abhorrence for this type of action, please cut him off, he diverts you from your purpose deliberately!

Cheers, Brian

A REQUEST TO YOU AND EVERYONE ON THIS FORUM:

If you’d like to discuss research, than rather than simply repeating what you’ve seen/heard elsewhere, please share with us links to the actual research or raw data/database (either the raw peer-reviewed or pre-print studies), as I’ve done in my posts above.

This will allow all of us to consider the methodology, dates, potential conflicts of interest, etc.

For example, I’ve seen a string of recent studies emerging (shared above), all concluding that infection and transmission rates are statistically similar (essentially equivalavent) for the vaccinated and unvaccinated. You claim research with contradictory conclusions here – please share those here (not just a video of people talking about it, etc.) I think this will serve us all better in our ongoing attempts to make sense of the situation. Thanks

Hi John,

Your point, “Your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose” is well taken. And likewise, one could say “the freedom to jab your needles ends at my skin.”

You also point to the need to balance many needs – those of each individual, those of the individual and those of the collective; and we should add employers/employees, young/old, healthy/unhealthy, etc. Hence my strong belief that centralised, reductionistic ‘power-over’ methods for addressing all of these are so problematic, especially in a complex situation with the needs of so many involved. Rather, I believe that far more beneficial is shifting to a collective intelligence, ‘everyone’s needs are on the table,’ ‘power-with’ approach. And again, resorting to violence always has significant repercussions, many of which are difficult to predict, though it nearly always results in further violence, and ultimately “eye for an eye” attitudes along with escalating polarisation and ultimately a badly ruptured society in which whatever safety may have been gained initially by the violence is lost and most likely reversed.

There are many, many strategies available to us other than reductionistic coercion measures (e.g., antigen testing, just to name one); and I am sure that many more strategies will emerge as everyone feels safer and more open to dialogue.

Here is the extended version of the quote by MLK at the end of the article – very apropos imho:
“The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate…Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”